Saturday, November 17, 2012

Great Piano Performances Made New

Introduction
By the blog author

Suppose it were possible to take great piano performances from 70 or even 100 years ago and bring them up to standard as modern digital releases.  It sounds impossible, because the sound of a concert grand piano is so complex and the ancient recording instruments and microphones were not able to record the entire range of sound.

But the digital age has made it possible to classify and diagnose the ancient recordings and determine the piano touch, loudness, pedal action and other aspects of a recital piece and to instruct a mechanical keyboard and pedal to repeat the original intended actions.  This makes a ghostly computer re perform an old but classic performance by a piano master.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Beginning in 2007, audio software pioneers Zenph Studios began collaborating with Sony Masterworks to bring classic, but poorly recorded piano recordings from yesteryear into the modern digital age. The idea was to capture the full range of musical performance nuance for each note – volume, tempo, articulation, pedal action, etc. – using sophisticated computer encoding, and then to re-record the performance as "played" by a comparable acoustic grand piano fitted with Zenph reading computers and hardware. The result is a Zenph Re-Performance®, bringing state-of the art fidelity to timeless interpretations by the great pianists of the past. The first two collaborations, Glenn Gould's historic 1955 recording of the Goldberg Variations (2007) and a 1949 live concert of jazz wizard Art Tatum at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles, as Piano Starts Here (2008) received rave reviews. Now the pair presents Rachmaninoff Plays Rachmaninoff, based on a set of recordings made by the great composer/pianist between 1921 and 1942 of five original works – including the famed Prelude in C#-, Op.3, No.2.

[Here is the Classical Archives review of the reperformance of Rachmaninoff solos:]

The most recent addition to the Zenph-Sony partnership is the album Rachmaninoff Plays Rachmaninoff, featuring a set of thirteen tracks, recorded between 1921 and 1942, of his original compositions and transcriptions – including such favorites as his Prelude in C#-, Op.3, No.2, and the arrangement of Rimsky-Korsakov's Flight of the Bumble-Bee. For this Re-Performance®, Zenph fitted their digital software to a 1909 Steinway D acoustic grand powered by the SE reproducing system, implemented by Richard Shepherd of Live Performance, Inc. This 2009 release marks the 100th Anniversary of Rachmaninov's US recital debut. As with the other two recordings, the Sony release presents the full album program two times, the first in standard (redbook) stereo, and the second in "binaural stereo", re-creating the aural experience that the pianists themselves might have had.

Classical Archives presents the complete new Sony Masterworks release, along with several fascinating comparative recordings. We first present comparisons between Zenph Re-Performances® and the original recordings (re-mastered in 1989) on three tracks: Rachmaninov's Prelude in C#-, Op.3, No.2, and his arrangements of Rimsky-Korsakov's Flight of the Bumble-Bee and Kreisler's Liebesleid; we then offer comparative recordings of Rachmaninov's performances and those of other famed pianist on two tracks: Etude tableau, Op. 33, No.2 (Vladimir Horowitz) and Moment musicaux, Op.16, No.2 (Vladimir Ashkenazy). Finally, we present an excerpt from the liner notes by Max Harrison, author of Rachmaninoff: Life, Works, Recordings.
 
Liner Notes (excerpt)

Besides being a great composer, Sergei Rachmaninoff (1873–1943) was also a marvelously accomplished and original performer on the piano, an instrument which has never lacked outstanding players. He cut gramophone recordings between 1919 and 1942, a period during which many improvements were made in the quality of recorded sound. Yet by twenty-first century standards Rachmaninoff's work for the gramophone sounds relatively primitive, thin and lacking the full resonance of which the piano is capable. These Zenph re-performances, which completely eliminate the technological limitations of the past, use computerized captures of attacks, key-speeds, pitches, durations, plus interpretative nuances including those added by Rachmaninoff's always subtle pedaling. And all this is done on a 1909 Steinway concert grand in optimum condition such as the composer always played himself.

These re-performances are programmed in the order of their original recording. Indeed the sequence begins and ends with Rachmaninoff's paraphrases of items by his friend Fritz Kreisler, "Liebesleid" and "Liebesfreud." These are in both pianistic and harmonic terms elaborate, sophisticated settings of what initially were simple tuneful encore pieces. The perfumed luxuriance of such performances immediately establishes what an extraordinary pianist Rachmaninoff was and each gives a bewitching demonstration of the real meaning of rubato.

All the above from: http://www.classicalarchives.com/feature/zenph.html

Note from the Blog Author
What this actually sounds like is Rachmaninoff himself playing the piano in a modern digital studio. The piano is crisp, perfect and nuanced. The Zenph technology also makes a point that argues with what critics and performers have been saying about Rachmaninoff for decades. This great pianist was not mechanical, not unfeeling and not a throwback to anyone in the nineteenth century. His technique was that of a virtuoso performer that doesn’t make mistakes and who communicates his own moods in tremendous detail with unequalled honesty. As the moods change, the rubato often changes, too, which is anathema to many continental artists and critics. But it works and it makes sense.  The performances also sharply rebuke those critics who have minimized Rachmaninoff as a composer and performer since his death in 1943.

Listening to the "earphone" recordings, with microphones placed where the composer’s ears would be located above the piano bench, actually does give a rendition played as the composer himself must have heard it. This is remarkable and informative.

Zenph re recordings of Glenn Gould and Art Tatum are also available.  I can only wish that Zenph would re perform the now antique piano solos recorded from Ernesto Leuceona and Ray Turner!

Friday, November 16, 2012

Continuously Variable Transmissions

A continuously variable transmission (CVT) is a transmission that can change steplessly through an infinite number of effective gear ratios between maximum and minimum values. This contrasts with other mechanical transmissions that offer a fixed number of gear ratios. The flexibility of a CVT allows the driving shaft to maintain a constant angular velocity over a range of output velocities.

CVT can provide better fuel economy than other transmissions by enabling the engine to run at its most efficient revolutions per minute (RPM) for a range of vehicle speeds. It can also be used to build kinetic energy recovery system.

Alternatively it can be used to maximize the performance of a vehicle by allowing the engine to turn at the
RPM at which it produces peak power. This is typically higher than the RPM that achieves peak efficiency.

Finally, a CVT does not strictly require the presence of a clutch, allowing the dismissal thereof. In some vehicles though (e.g. motorcycles), a centrifugal clutch is nevertheless added, however this is only to provide a "neutral" stance on a motorcycle (useful when idling, or manually reversing into a parking space).

Uses
Many small tractors for home and garden use have simple rubber belt CVTs. For example, the John Deere Gator line of small utility vehicles use a belt with a conical pulley system. They can deliver an abundance of power and can reach speeds of 10–15 mph (16–24 km/h), all without need for a clutch or shifting gears. Nearly all snowmobiles, old and new, and motorscooters use CVTs, typically the rubber belt/variable pulley variety.

Some combine harvesters have CVTs. The CVT allows the forward speed of the combine to be adjusted independently of the engine speed. This allows the operator to slow or accelerate as needed to accommodate variations in thickness of the crop.

CVTs have been used in aircraft electrical power generating systems since the 1950s and in Sports Car Club of America (SCCA) Formula 500 race cars since the early 1970s. CVTs were banned from Formula 1 in 1994 due to concerns that the best-funded teams would dominate if they managed to create a viable F1 CVT transmission. More recently, CVT systems have been developed for go-karts and have proven to increase performance and engine life expectancy. The Tomcar range of off-road vehicles also utilizes the CVT system.

Some drill presses and milling machines contain a pulley-based CVT where the output shaft has a pair of manually adjustable conical pulley halves through which a wide drive belt from the motor loops. The pulley on the motor, however, is usually fixed in diameter, or may have a series of given-diameter steps to allow a selection of speed ranges. A handwheel on the drill press, marked with a scale corresponding to the desired machine speed, is mounted to a reduction gearing system for the operator to precisely control the width of the gap between the pulley halves. This gap width thus adjusts the gearing ratio between the motor's fixed pulley and the output shaft's variable pulley, changing speed of the chuck. A tensioner pulley is implemented in the belt transmission to take up or release the slack in the belt as the speed is altered.  In most cases the speed must be changed with the motor running. 

CVTs should be distinguished from Power Sharing Transmissions (PSTs), as used in newer hybrid cars, such as the Toyota Prius, Highlander and Camry, the Nissan Altima, and newer-model Ford Escape Hybrid SUVs. CVT technology uses only one input from a prime mover, and delivers variable output speeds and torque; whereas PST technology uses two prime mover inputs, and varies the ratio of their contributions to output speed and power. These transmissions are fundamentally different. However the Mitsubishi Lancer, Proton Inspira, Honda Insight, Hinda Fit, and Honda CR-Z hybrids, the Nissan Tiida/Versa (only the SL model), Nissan Cube, Juke, Sentra, Altima, Maxima, Rogue, Murano, Micra, Honda Capa, Honda Civic HX, Jeep Patriot and Compass, and Subaru Impreza, Legacy and Outback offer CVT.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmission

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Check for Bedbugs

How to Check for Hotel Bed BugsDrivethenation.com, November 13, 2012

Most of us greatly enjoy the pleasures of sleeping away at a hotel. Whether one is away for business or on vacation, the beauty of staying in a hotel has several perks. There’s luxury, convenience, cleanliness, hospitality and much more. Unfortunately, as much as we’d like to believe that everything will go our way, it may not always be the case. Common downfalls can range from clogged toilets to broken air conditioners. However, the one thing most people don’t think about is the possibility of bed bugs.

The only good thing about bedbugs is that you can easily prevent a night getting bit by doing these procedures to check for them.
  • Take a close look under the bed sheets. Look closely at the mattress, running your fingers along the upper and lower seams. Bedbugs like dark areas, so also take a look at the mattress tag.
  • If possible, remove and look around the headboard. Check for tiny black spots that are smaller than poppy seeds. You may also see translucent light brown skins.
  • Examine the nightstands for any signs of bedbugs. Wood tends to attract bedbugs as well.
  • Keep your suitcases elevated on a luggage stand and off the floor.
If you do discover bedbugs, be sure to request a different room and inform hotel management of the issue. If they do get into your clothes of luggage, be sure to launder all cloth items with hot water and detergent and dry.

http://drivethenation.com/2012/11/13/how-to-check-for-hotel-bedbugs/

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

The Flexible Flyer sled lives on

A flexible flyer or steel runner sled is a steerable wooden sled with thin metal runners.

Flexible fliers are flexible both in design and usage. Riders may sit upright on the sled or lie on their stomachs, allowing the possibility to descend a snowy slope feet-first or head-first. To steer the sled, riders may either push on the wooden cross piece with their hands or feet, or pull on the rope attached to the wooden cross-piece. Shifting the cross-piece one way or the other causes the flexible rails to bend, turning the sled.

Flexible flyers work best on hard packed or icy snow. If the snow is soft and deep, the sled's runners are likely to sink in and prevent the sled from moving.

Samuel Leeds Allen patented the flexible flyer in 1889. Allen's company flourished by selling these speedy and yet controllable sleds at a time when others were still producing toboggans and "gooseneck" sleds.

Allen began producing sleds in his farm equipment factory to keep his workers busy even when it was not the farm season. He developed many prototypes before he created the flexible flyer. The sleds did not sell well until he began marketing them to the toy departments of department stores. In 1915, around 120,000 flexible fliers were sold, and almost 2,000 flexible flyers were sold in one day.

In 1968, Leisure Group of Los Angeles, California bought the S. L. Allen Company. Leisure Group continued to produce flexible flyers in Medina, Ohio. In 1973, a group of private investors bought Leisure Group's toy division and started manufacturing the sleds under the name "Blazon Flexible Flyer" in West Point, Mississippi. In 1993, Roadmaster purchased the rights to production and moved production to Olney, Illinois, and in 1998, production was moved to China. As of 2012, Flexible Flyers are made in China and the by Paricon LLC in South Paris, Maine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_flyer


                Note the three full arches and cross members for this full size sled.

see also: http://www.pariconsleds.com/classic-sleds

"Lesser of Two Evils" = Fallacy

Fallacy Detective: Three Assumptions Made by "Lesser of Two Evils" Voters

Posted by Tobin, October 31, 2012

So if you have not noticed, there is a presidential election again this year, and it is therefore a good time to hear more logical fallacies than usual in the media and in political conversations.

It seems there are a whole lot of Party P voters out there who do not like their party nominee, Candidate P, very much, but who will be voting for him anyway based on the reasoning that he is better than the incumbent, Candidate Q. I hear that some have even been calling him the "Lesser of Two Evils" (which will hereafter be referred to as the "LOTE"). What these voters seem to be proposing is that Candidate P’s most admirable characteristic is that he is not Candidate Q, and that this is enough reason to vote for him.

I will not be addressing whether this is, in fact, Candidate P’s best characteristic nor endorsing or denouncing any candidate whatsoever; so far as I know, Classical Conversations is not in the business of doing either. What we are in the business of is logic, so what I will be doing is playing the role of a fallacy detective; what I will be addressing is whether or not, if this were found to be true, it would be a valid reason for electing him.

Please do not infer any charge to vote for one candidate or the other. What I am doing is merely an exercise in logic, based on some reasoning I have been hearing a lot lately. The most I will accomplish (hopefully) is to point out some reasons why the "LOTE" is not, in itself, a compelling reason to vote for a candidate.

The "Lesser of Two Evils" reasoning fails to differentiate the person from his policies.

Fallacy: Red Herring, Ad Hominem

When Party P voters say that Candidate P is a lesser evil than Candidate Q, most are stating the claim with regard to personal character: Candidate P is Christian (or at least something like it), while Candidate Q is a heathen, postmodernist cigarette smoker with lots of skeletons in his closet. (For the purpose of this example, let it be assumed that we know Candidate P is neither a closet-smoking nor skeleton-hiding candidate.)

Moral character is certainly an important condition in choosing a leader, but it is not a sufficient condition; competence is at least equally important. What we need to be discussing, at least as much, is whether the policies of Candidate P are really likely to have a better impact on the country than the policies of Candidate Q.

For example, one could easily envision a situation in which Candidate Q is an atheist, liar, and chauvinist, who proposes some disastrous new kind of national insurance coverage, whereas Candidate P is a philanthropist and family man, who supports the same disastrous new kind of insurance coverage. In choosing between them, we should not assume that Candidate P will be a better kind of president simply because he is a better kind of man; a good man can bankrupt the nation just as easily as a bad man if they both have the same disastrous ideas. If their policies are the same, their presidencies will be the same.

The "Lesser of Two Evils" reasoning restricts the argument to the current presidential term.

Fallacy: Framing the Debate

When Candidate P is recommended as being the "LOTE," the argument is always confined to the immediate presidential term: after four years of Candidate Q, the "LOTE" proponents say, the country shall be worse off than it would after four years of Candidate P. (For the purpose of this example, we will assume that they are correct, and that the country would, in fact, be worse off after four years of Candidate Q than it would after four years of Candidate P.)

The problem is, this assumes that the two choices being put before voters are:

(Circle One)

a) Four years of Candidate P

b) Four years of Candidate Q

Actually, the two choices being put before voters are:

(Circle one)

a) Four years of Candidate P, and Candidate P subsequently up for reelection

b) Four years of Candidate Q, and potentially some other Party P representative subsequently up as challenger

People who do not like Candidate P now are unlikely to like him any better four years from now. By voting for the "LOTE," they are almost certainly locking him into the ballot four years from now instead of taking the chance that the next challenger might be someone who does not make them hold their noses.

By framing the debate, the "LOTE" proponents are accepting a lesser good now and rejecting a greater good later.


The "Lesser of Two Evils" reasoning assumes that there are only two options.

Fallacy: Exigency, Either/Or

This shall be the hardest fallacy to argue for, so I will argue it in brief. I feel I should reiterate the disclaimer that this article is not proposing that either candidate is evil. Rather, it is speaking of a situation in which one candidate is considered the "LOTE" by many of the people who are going to vote for him.

Adopting such a stance concedes that Evil #1 and Evil #2 are the only possible options – or at least, that the badness of Evil #1 constitutes such an emergency that Evil #1 can only be combated by submitting to Evil #2.

There are at least two flawed assumptions with this concession.

The first is that while exigencies of time or convenience do have the power to limit our practical options (one might not have time to study for both exams, and so prepares for the one on which a poor grade would be more disastrous), it does not follow that they have the power to limit our moral options. And it is in moral terms that the "LOTE" argument has chosen to present itself.

For example, when making merely practical decisions (clean part of the house now or have to clean it all later), it is acceptable to choose the lesser of two inconveniences, and in fact we do so all the time. But when making moral decisions (and the "LOTE" proponents, by that very vocabulary, believe that this is one) choosing the "less bad" of the two options is not the correct way to go about it. This is because a moral decision is being made as if it were a practical decision. One does not even have to disagree with the candidate who is being chosen in order to dismiss this particular decision-making process.

The second assumption is that the two options need always be unappealing. "LOTE" reasoning accepts a state of affairs that it deems unacceptable, instead of trying to change it over time by the influence of the dissenting "conscience vote." There is as yet no law that compels us to vote for either Candidate P or Candidate Q, and while voting for someone else might indeed be the impractical choice, once again remember that the reasons against doing so ought to then be cast in terms of practicality (such as "choosing the lesser of two inconveniences"), not in terms of morality.

Oddly, a political climate has arisen in which the impractical choice is deemed to be evil, and the practical, or self-proclaimed "less evil" choice, is hailed as being good.

Conclusion


These are the three assumptions fallacy detectives can find in the "LOTE" reasoning: it talks about the person when it ought to be talking about policy, it narrows the issue to what is immediate, and it confuses practical exigency with moral exigency.

https://www.classicalconversations.com/easyblog/fallacy-detective-three-assumptions-made-by-lesser-of-two-evils-voters

Monday, November 12, 2012

Thousands Sign US Secession Petitions

Secession petitions filed in 20 states

By Mike Krumboltz, YahooNews, November 12, 2012

In the wake of last week's presidential election, thousands of Americans have signed petitions seeking permission for their states to peacefully secede from the United States. The petitions were filed on We the People, a government website.

States with citizens filing include Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. Oddly, folks from Georgia have filed twice. Even stranger, several of the petitions come from states that went for President Barack Obama.

The petitions are short and to the point. For example, a petition from the Volunteer State reads: "Peacefully grant the State of Tennessee to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government." Of all the petitions, Texas has the most signatures so far, with more than 23,000.

Of course, this is mostly a symbolic gesture. The odds of the American government granting any state permission to go its own way are on par with winning the lottery while getting hit by a meteor while seeing Bigfoot while finding gluten-free pizza that tastes like the real thing.

An artivcle from WKRC quotes a University of Louisville political science professor who explained that these petitions aren't uncommon. Similar petitions were filed following the 2004 and 2008 elections. Still, should the petitions garner 25,000 signatures in a month, they will require an official response from the Obama administration.

From the We the People site:
The right to petition your government is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. We the People provides a new way to petition the Obama Administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country. We created We the People because we want to hear from you. If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it's sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response.
Not everybody who wants to secede is polite enough to write a petition. Peter Morrison, treasurer of the Hardin County (Texas) Republican Party, wrote a post-election newsletter in which he urges the Lone Star State to leave the Union.
"We must contest every single inch of ground and delay the baby-murdering, tax-raising socialists at every opportunity. But in due time, the maggots will have eaten every morsel of flesh off of the rotting corpse of the Republic, and therein lies our opportunity... Why should Vermont and Texas live under the same government? Let each go her own way in peace, sign a free trade agreement among the states and we can avoid this gut-wrenching spectacle every four years."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/secission-petitions-filed-20-states-190210006.html

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Follow on story – Texas has hit the 25,000 signature threshold!

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

White House May Respond
to Texas Secession Petition
By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News
White House Correspondent

Looks like the Obama administration may have to respond to a petition seeking the green light for Texas to secede from the United States—one of 20 such requests filed on the official White House website since Election Day.

At the time of the writing of this post, the Texas secession petition had garnered 25,318 signatures—above the White House's self-imposed rules for requiring a reply. 

The White House may opt out of replying. Under its own rules, "To avoid the appearance of improper influence, the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government in its response to a petition."

Other secession petitions include requests for Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, Michigan, Colorado, Oregon, New Jersey, North Dakota, Montana, Indiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, North Carolina, Alabama and New York. (Spoiler alert: No, the White House won't approve secession.)
Here's the text of the Texas petition:
The U.S. continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government's neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the U.S. suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect its citizens' standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-may-respond-texas-secession-petition-212328772--election.html

Sunday, November 11, 2012

The Problem of Irreproducible Results

By Elizabeth Iorns


Cutting edge scientific research is often interdisciplinary. Geneticists team up with biostatisticians, physicists with computer scientists, and biologists with chemists. Partially because of this increasing complexity, however, the scientific literature is littered with papers that cannot be replicated, either because of the good faith efforts of scientists who fail in their attempts to be jacks-of-all-trades or because corners are cut deliberately.

We are trying to fix that.

Science and technology have always been intertwined. The first scientist to describe the cellular composition of life built his own microscope. These days, however, it is safe to say that the majority of cell biologists would not have any idea how to grind a lens or engineer a light box. Most cognitive psychologists probably have only a rudimentary understanding of the physics behind functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), let alone the image processing steps.

These are common examples of the growing specialization required for the modern scientific enterprise to advance.

One positive result of this specialization is the rise of core facilities in the best universities, in which departments intent on recruiting and keeping top scientific talent provide incentives that include specialized facilities for animal breeding, microscopy, genomics, etc. Core facilities are run by dedicated professional scientists who are responsible for maintaining the highest quality and most up-to-date technologies in their designated domains.

Core facilities often have excess capacity that goes unused by researchers in their home institutions. That’s one reason we started Science Exchange. We wanted to bring the efficiencies of electronic marketplaces into the service of science by connecting investigators and service providers, matching needs and expertise regardless of geographic location. Our aim is to improve the quality and efficiency of scientific research, while reducing costs.

Additionally, Science Exchange provides a tool to address the problem of reproducibility. In our network, we have over 1,000 service providers, who work on a fee-for-service basis. What if we could harness those experts to independently replicate the most important research findings?

Earlier this summer, an advisory group of scientific leaders and I launched the Reproducibility Initiative using Science Exchange as a platform. The initiative has two tracks. First, if they have the funds to pay for the service, researchers may submit findings that they want to have independently replicated, perhaps because of its potential translational or commercial value. Where we have providers with the necessary expertise, we will randomly assign replication studies to them.

Second, as part of a broader, more inclusive survey of reproducibility, we invite authors of recently published papers to nominate their work for independent replication. Our partner, Mdndeley, will track the download and citation statistics of invited papers, and our funding partners will support the replication of a fraction of the nominated papers, effectively creating an audit mechanism. Our expectation is that papers that are nominated for replication are more likely to be reproducible and robust. In effect, we are implementing a behavioral screen for papers in which authors demonstrate full confidence.

We are working with PLOS ONE – an open-access publisher which provides articles free of charge to the public – to give authors of replicated studies the opportunity to publish their results, regardless of outcome. Publishing "negative" data, in which experiments fail to replicate, is just as important as publishing a confirmation of results. In this way, we hope to encourage and reward robust, reproducible research.

The beauty and power of using core facilities to perform independent replications of scientific studies is that their incentives are clear. They want to provide the best service possible, within the limited domain of their expertise, for a fee. And importantly, there is no conflict of interest, since they have no vested interest in the outcome of any particular research study.

Using this unique strategy, we believe our Initiative will help solve the problem of reproducibility.

Elizabeth Iorns is the co-founder and CEO of Science Exchange.

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/11/10/solving_the_problem_of_irreproducible_results_106402.html